22-05-2004 03:54									#211
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I am a vegetarian also because of ethical reasons, but they differ a slight bit from oswald's.
For me it's okay to eat meat, ... sometimes. It is a means to survive, and I can understand some people might like the taste of meat (I dislike it enormously). However with the way we're treating and handling animals and our environment in general I disagree entirely. How can a rational and sane mind justify holding animals and stuffing them in order to slaughter them. It's useless, it's cruel, it requires an enormous amount of resources and agriculture we could've easily used for ourselves. There's too much agriculture as there is now anyway.
We take meat for granted, but in the end we're simply cowards. I bet most people would not even dare to kill an animal if it were standing right in front of them, slaughtering it, cleaning it, removing intestines etc. I know how it's all like because I've worked at a meatplant. It's dusgusting and I curse and spit on all of those braindead ****ers working there.

Some people reckon it's normal that animals are being processed 'en masse' in factories, but they have to realize it's not. We've only been doing it for a very short time and it's ethically and also morally plain wrong

	22-05-2004 04:04									#212
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap A determined group of human hunters will beat a group of lions-might not be easy, but we have a huge leg up on them. Hunters would rather exterminate lions to then forster other animals.

I have yet to see a group of prehistorical humans exterminating a pack of grown up lions to gain dominance in the area

Besides while they are rivals, they will live side by side. Neither side will want to risk getting killed fighting eachother, and secondly in past times there was enough prey for both humans and other predators. Finally big predators such as lions you won't find running around every 200 yards. Such animals, just like humans in prehistoric times, had a very big territory in which they hunted. There was absolutely no need to fight eachother, unless one of either was weaker than the other and would be seen as prey.

On a sidenote however there have been times we can speak of 'overpopulation' causing migration of human groups, like in the Nile delta, thus colonizing Europe and possibly rivalling weaker human groups with more primitive tools. Competition between human groups is a lot more likely in the past imo

	22-05-2004 04:11									#213
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd I think it is. People can live without meat... but I have never heard of anyone living without plants. And with the fervour some meat-eaters hate vegetarians, I am sure there would be some movement to do this if it was possible.

People living in artic climate zones were there simply are no plants to eat. Certainly they are deficient in fiber, but otherwise they get what they need to live.

quote: Well, atleast you are fairly consistent. I don't see many meat-eaters accept cannibalism, ever. But, I hope you realize that any meat (especially when 'factory farmed') is a health hazzard for humans when compared to plants. There is always a greater risk of contracting a sickness from meat then there is from plants.

Yes, but meat is more "valuable" than plants. You could feed a group of people better with a 200 lb animal than you could with 200 lbs of plants, if only becuase that 200 lb animal pakcs way more energy than those 200 lbs of plants. It's called risk benefit annalysis.

	22-05-2004 04:13									#214
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Trajanus I have yet to see a group of prehistorical humans exterminating a pack of grown up lions to gain dominance in the area Besides while they are rivals, they will live side by side. Neither side will want to risk getting killed fighting eachother, and secondly in past times there was enough prey for both humans and other predators. Finally big predators such as lions you won't find running around every 200 yards. Such animals, just like humans in prehistoric times, had a very big territory in which they hunted. There was absolutely no need to fight eachother, unless one of either was weaker than the other and would be seen as prey. On a sidenote however there have been times we can speak of 'overpopulation' causing migration of human groups, like in the Nile delta, thus colonizing Europe and possibly rivalling weaker human groups with more primitive tools. Competition between human groups is a lot more likely in the past imo

There were certainly large feline hunters living in the lands of the middle east before man got there. By 1 ad most if not all were dead. man got rid of them. Large carnivorous hunters only survived in areas man did not exploit too heavily, simply becuase of the bother.

	22-05-2004 04:15									#215
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Yes, but meat is more "valuable" than plants. You could feed a group of people better with a 200 lb animal than you could with 200 lbs of plants, if only becuase that 200 lb animal pakcs way more energy than those 200 lbs of plants. It's called risk benefit annalysis.

Depends. In prehistoric times the energy used for hunting is a lot bigger than gathering and scavenging. Even farming is more profitable in that regard.
Nowadays you need a lot of plants to feed your animals which only after a fairly long time you can use to feed your population. Again more energy is wasted.